Download the formation, maintenance, and breakdown of romantic

THE FORMATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
BREAKDOWN OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
To read up on the formation, maintenance, and breakdown of relationships, refer to
pages 115–124 of Eysenck’s A2 Level Psychology.
Ask yourself
 Think of three close friends you had at primary and secondary school. What
attracted you to those particular people? List as many factors as you can.
 Were the same friendships maintained from primary to secondary school? If
not, think about the reasons why they did not continue.
 Consider any friendships you have outside school or college. How did you
meet these friends? Are these friendships the same or different from the ones
at school or college?
 With respect to romantic relationships, what features attract you to a
particular person? Do you think your friends find the same features
attractive or are they looking for different ones?
What you need to know
THEORIES OF THE FORMATION, MAINTENANCE, AND BREAKDOWN OF
ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS


Reward/need satisfaction theory
Economic theories: Social exchange theory; equity theory
THEORIES OF THE FORMATION, MAINTENANCE, AND BREAKDOWN OF ROMANTIC
RELATIONSHIPS
Reward/Need Satisfaction Theory
This theory (see A2 Level Psychology page 116) is based on learning theory and
states that we form relationships that provide rewards (reinforcement) and satisfy
our needs. Rewards include companionship, being loved, sex, status, money, help,
and agreement with our opinions, as shown by Foa and Foa (1975, see A2 Level
Psychology page 117). Both operant and classical conditioning are influential.
 Classical conditioning—Byrne (1971) pointed out that by classical
conditioning we come to like people with whom we associate enjoyment and
satisfaction even if they are not directly responsible for the positive
experiences. When we experience enjoyable shared activities with people,
they create in us a positive emotional feeling, known as a positive affect.
 Operant conditioning—we like those who provide us with rewards and
dislike those whose presence is unpleasant (i.e. punishing) because they are,
for example, tedious, boring, or argumentative.
Interactive exercise: Factors in the formation of relationships
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 A study on humans was reported by Griffit and Guay (1969, see A2 Level
Psychology page 117). They had someone give a reward or a punishment to
several participants in the presence of an uninvolved bystander (the bogus
stranger). The bystander was liked more by participants who were rewarded
than by those who were punished.
 Veitch and Griffitt (1976, see A2 Level Psychology page 117) demonstrated
that people who interact with a stranger against a background broadcast of
good news rate them more positively than when they meet a stranger while
listening to a broadcast full of depressing news items.
 Rabbie and Horowitz (1960, see A2 Level Psychology page 117) found that
strangers preferred those whom they met while winning a game rather than
when losing it.
EVALUATION
 Accounts for research findings. The theory explains why factors such as
proximity, similarity, and physical attractiveness are important factors in
relationship formation and maintenance. They all provide easily obtainable,
significant positive reinforcement with the minimum of effort.
 The theory is supported by everyday experiences. Argyle (1988, see A2
Level Psychology page 118) found that people who are friendly, co-operative,
and warm, i.e. are rewarding, are consistently liked better than those who are
not.
 It only accounts for the initial formation of relationships. The theory
does not explain why relationships sometimes continue even when they
become quite unsatisfactory.
 It does not account for the strength of some “unrewarding”
relationships. Child–parent relationships are enormously strong, yet the
actual rewards are not always great. Argyle (1988) stated that rewards are
out of all proportion to the strength of the relationship (just ask your mum
and dad!).
 Underestimation of altruism. The theory assumes that we are all motivated
by a selfish desire to get as much as possible out of a relationship. It does not
account for truly altruistic relationships such as regularly helping an elderly
neighbour with no expectation of reward.
 Individualistic bias. The theory is more relevant to Western individualistic
cultures than to non-Western collectivist cultures. Lott (1994, see A2 Level
Psychology page 118) speculates that they are also more relevant to men
than to women.
 Weakness of methodology. The research on which these theories are based
depends heavily on “bogus stranger” studies, because the strangers the
participants are being asked to rate are confederates of the experimenter.
This is highly artificial and is unlikely to represent the way we meet people in
real life and so the research lacks external validity as it may not generalise
well to real-life relationships.
Economic Theories: Social Exchange Theory (SET)
The basic assumptions of social exchange theory (SET) are that relationships
provide both rewards (e.g. affection, sex, emotional support) and costs (e.g.
providing support, not always having your own way). Everyone tries to maximise
rewards while minimising costs. Thibaut and Kelley (1959, see A2 Level Psychology
page 118) argued that long-term friendships and relationships go through four
stages: sampling, bargaining, negotiation, and institutionalisation, when rewards
and costs are established and entrenched. How satisfied individuals are with the
rewards and costs of a relationship will depend on what they have come to expect
from previous relationships. In other words, they have a comparison level (CL)
(Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), representing the outcomes they believe they deserve on
the basis of past experiences—so if in the past they have had very poor
relationships they may expect very little from subsequent ones. In addition, their
level of satisfaction will depend on the rewards and costs that would be involved if
they formed a relationship with someone else; this is known as the “comparison
level for alternatives” (CLalt). All of this makes sense—if you are a very attractive
and popular person, you can afford to be very choosy in your friendships and
relationships.
Economic Theories: Equity Theory
Equity theory is an extension of social exchange theory. The basic assumption is that
people only consider a relationship to be satisfactory if what they gain from it
reflects what they give to it. This means that if one person contributes more, they
feel they should get more out of it. Equity is especially important at the beginning of
a relationship rather than when it is firmly established. Walster, Walster, and
Berscheid (1978, see A2 Level Psychology page 120) expressed key assumptions of
equity theory, such as: individuals try to maximise the rewards they receive and
minimise the costs; there is negotiation to produce fairness; distress and
relationship breakdown may follow when the relationship is unfair or inequitable.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 Hatfield, Utne, and Traupmann (1979, see A2 Level Psychology page 120)
looked at people who felt under-benefited (got less than they should) or
over-benefited (got more than they should) in a relationship. They found that
the under-benefited people felt angry, resentful, and deprived. Those who
were over-benefited felt guilty and uncomfortable.
 Argyle (1988, see A2 Level Psychology page 120) explored gender differences
and found that over-benefited women are less satisfied that those in
equitable marriages, whereas with men, over-benefit brings little
dissatisfaction. Under-benefited men feel more aggrieved than women in the
same situation.
 Buunk and VanYperen (1991, see A2 Level Psychology page120) found that
those in marriages perceived to be equitable were found to be the happiest,
whereas those who perceived themselves as under-benefited were the
unhappiest. But this applied only in relationships high in exchange
orientation, i.e. where rewards given by one partner are expected to be
reciprocated by the other partner.
EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC THEORIES
 Explanation of individual differences. Levinger’s theory takes account of
at least some of the complex reasons why people either remain in marriages
or leave them. By doing this, it explains why there is not a strong relationship
between levels of satisfaction and likelihood of leaving the marriage. People
in very unsatisfactory marriages often do not dissolve them, yet those in
mediocre marriages sometimes do. If the barriers to leaving are high and the
alternatives not very attractive, then people tend to stay
 Underestimation of altruism. SET assumes that people are self-centred
whereas many relationships are not based on this principle (see Evaluation
of reinforcement and need satisfaction theories, in the previous section).
 Cross-cultural criticism. These principles apply more to individualistic than
to collectivist cultures, due to the focus on individual gain.
 Explains influences on relationships. The equity theory takes account of
rewards and costs and thereby explains the matching hypothesis, i.e. it
explains why people are usually equally physically attractive as well as equal
in other ways, but also why, for example, a rich, unattractive man can attract
a younger, far more attractive woman.
 Supported by research studies. There is considerable research evidence in
support of equity theory, see above.
 Does not account for change over time. Because equity is more important
at the beginning of a relationship and people are quite tolerant of some
inequity once the relationship is well established, it has limited value in
explaining the maintenance and dissolution of relationships.
 Some research contradicts the theory. Not all research evidence supports
equity theory. Some research (e.g. Buunck, 1996) indicates that there is no
association between the degree of equity and the future quality of the
relationship.
 Not all marriages are based on equity. Clark and Mills (1979, see A2 Level
Psychology page 121) contend that most marriages are not based on
exchange principles. They believe that in many marriages people gain
satisfaction by responding to each other’s needs.
 Artificiality of research. Much of the research on economic theories is
based on very artificial experiments and so may not reflect real-life
relationships.
 Quantifying rewards and costs. The relevance of the economic theories to
real life is questioned by how well rewards and costs can be quantified.
Although this criticism can be challenged as one can know if one is under- or
over-benefited without knowing the precise amount of costs and rewards.
 Equality. The economic theories ignore equality, which is a key omission as
relationships may well be based more on this than exchange and equity.
Miller’s criticisms. Miller (2005, see A2 Level Psychology page 122) has
criticised the theories because economic principles do not account for the
emotional nature of relationships. She also links the theories to the zeitgeist
of the 1970s in that they reflect the openness and freedom that was
developing at the time and so may not be as relevant to the current time
period; this means they are era-dependent (lack temporal validity).
SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Researchers and theorists of interpersonal relationships face many problems. There are an enormous
number and type of relationships and many theories are not specific about the type of relationship to which
they apply. Of course we cannot expect one theory to account for all relationships. Relationships form and
evolve over a very long period of time, making the processes involved difficult to research and not very
amenable to the typical methods used. The artificial nature of the studies can be criticised, especially the
“bogus stranger” studies, in which people have little other than a questionnaire on which to base their
opinions. Thus, the research provides only a “snapshot” of relationships because when we interact with
people in real life there are a host of other influences that affect our judgement. Furthermore, the research
fails to contextualise because it treats relationships as if they “stand alone” when of course family and
friends do have influence over our real-life relationships. Nevertheless, the research has revealed useful
pointers to the most important influences on the formation, maintenance, and breakdown of relationships,
and has formed the basis on which more realistic research can be founded.
OVER TO YOU
1. Outline and evaluate theories of formation, maintenance, and breakdown of relationships. (25 marks)